Dismissed

S.R. Panwalkar and 14 Ors. v. Bombay Port Trust and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Nov 2009WP/1280/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the scrapping of a 1999 promotion panel and sought permission to apply for impleadment in a pending Industrial Tribunal reference. The court dismissed the plea for permission, stating impleadment is a matter for the Tribunal, and disposed of the writ petition standing the meritless prayer to stall promotions.

What the court decided

AI extract

S.R. Panwalkar and 14 Ors. Vs Bombay Port… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

AJN

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1280 OF 2009

¶6

S.R. Panwalkar & Ors.

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Mumbai Port Trust & Anr.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Mr. M.L. Pendse i/b Mr. P. Abhyankar for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. R.S. Pai with Ms. K. Anchan for respondents 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

¶13

Mr. Kiran Kandpile and Mr. Mandar Goswami for respondent 2.

¶14

CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶15

DATED : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2009.

¶16

P.C.:-

¶17

In this petition, the petitioners have challenged

¶18

scrapping of the earlier panel constituted in the year 1999 for promotion of Class III employees to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that, at present, the only relief the

¶19

AJN

¶20

¶21

petitioners are seeking is that they may be permitted to make an application for impleading themselves as parties before the Industrial Tribunal where the reference being Reference No.CGIT-2/74 of 2009 is pending for adjudication. He further states that till such time as the application of the petitioners is heard and decided, no promotion should be given to anybody.

¶22

For making an application for impleading themselves as parties before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioners do not need any permission from this court. The petitioners can make such application. If such an application is made, the Industrial Tribunal shall consider it on its own merits, independently and in accordance with law.

¶23

Since we have not considered the merits of the case, it is not possible for us to stall any promotions. Needless to say that if the petitioners are made parties to the reference, promotions made will be subject to the pending proceedings.

¶24

AJN

¶25

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners will make an application before the Industrial Tribunal within two weeks from today. He states that copy of the application will be served on the respondents immediately. If such an application is made, the Industrial Tribunal shall dispose of the said application within a period of four weeks from the date of its filing.

¶27

The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms.

¶28

[SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]

¶29

[MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.]

S.R. Panwalkar and 14 Ors. v. Bombay Port Trust and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

S.R. Panwalkar and 14 Ors. v. Bombay Port Trust and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Kashiram Jamnadas Vs Union of India

Rajesh Vitthal Koyande Vs the Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane District and 2 Ors.

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Mahasangh Vs Security Guards Board for the Greater Bombay and Thene District and 2 Ors.

Sanjay Sankataprasad Singh Vs the Bombay Municipal Commissioer and 2 Ors.

Raman Cathelic School of St. Teresas and Anr. Vs the Education Inspector and Anr.

Ramkumar Jalan Public Charitable Trust Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.